Amalendu Ghosh vs North Eastern Railway

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Appeal (civil) 291 of 1958

Decision Date: 15 January 1960

Coram: P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, K.C. Das Gupta, B.P. Sinha, J.C. Shah

In this case the appellant, Amalendu Ghosh, had been employed as an assistant station master at Rawtara on the Katihar‑Jogbani branch of the North‑Eastern Railway. On 9 January 1957 he was served with an order that reduced him to the rank of signaller. He challenged the validity of that order by filing a writ petition in the High Court at Patna on 3 July 1957. The High Court dismissed the petition summarily on 4 July 1957 and also refused his application for a certificate under Articles 132(1) and 133(1)(c) of the Constitution. Afterward the appellant obtained special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

The appellant’s grievance was that the order had been passed without giving him an opportunity to meet the charge, as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court found that this contention was well founded and therefore the appeal needed to be allowed. The Court observed that the material facts underlying the impugned order had not been properly presented to the High Court; otherwise the High Court would not have dismissed the petition summarily.

The factual background was that on 9 June 1956 a collision occurred between the train engine of 313 Down and a bullock cart at Rawtara. The cartman died in the accident, although the buffaloes drawing the cart were not injured. A departmental enquiry, required by the relevant statute, was conducted into the accident. The enquiry concluded that the accident happened because the level‑crossing gate between Up, Outer and Home at Rawtara had not been locked with the chain in front of the incoming train 313 Down. The committee holding the enquiry stated that the accident resulted from the violation of General Safety Rule 229/5 by both the appellant and the points man, Shri Raghunath Koori.

Subsequently, on 26 July 1956 the appellant received a notice calling upon him to provide a written explanation within seven days as to why the penalty specified in the list should not be imposed on him. Upon receiving the notice the appellant complained that he had not been given any opportunity to meet the charge, asserted his innocence and lack of misconduct, and prayed that local witnesses be examined. He also referred to the fact that shortly after the accident a local police officer had conducted an investigation whose report indicated that the appellant was not responsible for the accident. No further enquiry was held, and the appellant was not given any further chance to show cause regarding the charge of responsibility for the accident. Ultimately on 9 January 1957 the order under challenge was passed against him, and his subsequent appeal against that order failed. The appellant therefore questioned the validity of the order, arguing that the statutory enquiry had not been directed specifically against him but was a general accident investigation in which he had given evidence, and that the committee had found his statements in support of the points man to be false, thereby implicating him alongside the points man.

In the present case the local police officer conducted an investigation after the accident and his report concluded that the appellant was not responsible for the mishap. It appears that after this police report no further inquiry was undertaken, nor was the appellant afforded any opportunity to answer the charge that he bore responsibility for the accident. Consequently, on 9 January 1957 the impugned order was issued against him. The appellant subsequently appealed against that order, but his appeal was dismissed. On the basis of these facts the appellant contested the validity of the order.

The Court observed that the inquiry carried out by the statutory committee was not directed specifically against the appellant; rather, it was the routine investigation undertaken in the aftermath of an accident to determine the cause and the persons responsible. During that inquiry the appellant, as well as other witnesses, gave testimony. The Committee, however, concluded that the statements made by the appellant in support of the points‑man were untrue and that, together with the points‑man, the appellant was negligent in performing his duties. The Court noted that the first portion of the finding, signed by Mr Basu, the President of the Committee, seemed to attribute responsibility solely to the points‑man, whereas the later portion implicated both the points‑man and the appellant. The record did not make clear when this latter portion was appended to the report, giving some merit to the appellant’s grievance. Nonetheless, the Court held that the departmental action taken against the appellant arose from the conclusions of that statutory inquiry, and that it was evident the appellant should have been provided a chance to assert his innocence by means of a separate inquiry addressing the specific charge of responsibility for the accident.

The Court further explained that the findings of the statutory committee could not be treated as findings made against the appellant in a departmental inquiry for alleged neglect of duty or violation of statutory rules. This position was expressly acknowledged by the counsel for the respondent and was plainly evident from the record, which showed that before the notice requiring the appellant to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed, no inquiry into the alleged misconduct had actually been conducted. While the authorities might have believed that the statutory inquiry into the accident sufficed, the Court rejected that view, stating that a departmental inquiry is a distinct investigative process under statutory regulations and does not, by itself, constitute an accusation of negligence or dereliction of duty. Accordingly, the Court was satisfied that the appellant was justified in challenging the validity of the impugned order on the ground that a proper departmental inquiry had not been held and that he had not been given a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge against him.

In this case the Court found that no proper enquiry had been conducted and that the appellant had not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge brought against him, and therefore the order in question had to be set aside. The Court noted that counsel for the appellant had attempted to persuade the Court that the appellant was not guilty of any negligence and that he had not violated any statutory rules, but the Court did not permit counsel to argue that point. Consequently the Court limited its role in the present appeal to setting aside the impugned order. The Court explained that once the order was set aside, it would be for the department to initiate any appropriate proceedings against the appellant and to deal with him in accordance with the law. Accordingly the Court allowed the appeal, reversed the order passed by the High Court, and set aside the impugned order dated 9 January 1957 that had reduced the appellant to the rank of signaller. In the circumstances, the Court directed that each party should bear its own costs, noting that counsel for the respondent had fairly conceded that the main contention raised by the appellant could not be successfully resisted.